You can now preorder the new Canon wide angle lenses from B&H Photo, Amazon and Adorama. By the looks of the MTF charts and the surprising price, the EF 16-35 f/4L IS looks like a real winner. Both of these lenses are expected to be released some time in June.

The STM is certainly fantastic, for a minimal weight kit. We have the two other STM zooms here, they are just great and perform well while traveling. We look forward to the new one. Pre-ordered of course.

For my production kit...The 4.0 certain a great lens - so far I can tell based on specs, but for me it is more a great promise for a (hopefully) upcoming 2.8 III version of it (IS or not) -- I would buy it instantly.

Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable." After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40. Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...

Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable." After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40. Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...

If the MTF charts are any indication, Canon should have opened at the $1,499 of the 24-70 F/4 as many many many landscape people have wanted an autofocusing UWA with sharp corners for ages now. They'd scoop a nice profit from that pent up large demand and then could walk the price down the $1,199 over the course of the year.

So I am a bit lost why Canon opened at such a fair price. This isn't like them at all.

Mind you, I am not complaining. At this current $1,199 offering, I may just buy this now and not wait for the reviews to justify the price. I never do that.

Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable." After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40. Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...

If the MTF charts are any indication, Canon should have opened at the $1,499 of the 24-70 F/4 as many many many landscape people have wanted an autofocusing UWA with sharp corners for ages now. They'd scoop a nice profit from that pent up large demand and then could walk the price down the $1,199 over the course of the year.

So I am a bit lost why Canon opened at such a fair price. This isn't like them at all.

Mind you, I am not complaining. At this current $1,199 offering, I may just buy this now and not wait for the reviews to justify the price. I never do that.

Wondering if it is the outrageous initial price of the 24-70 f/4 IS that makes this 16-35 f/4 IS seem "reasonable." After all, it sports quite a premium over the 17-40. Not to say that it won't be worth it because it probably will be once the reviews are in, but just an observation...

If the MTF charts are any indication, Canon should have opened at the $1,499 of the 24-70 F/4 as many many many landscape people have wanted an autofocusing UWA with sharp corners for ages now. They'd scoop a nice profit from that pent up large demand and then could walk the price down the $1,199 over the course of the year.

So I am a bit lost why Canon opened at such a fair price. This isn't like them at all.

Mind you, I am not complaining. At this current $1,199 offering, I may just buy this now and not wait for the reviews to justify the price. I never do that.

- A

Maybe with the falling Yen and the, perhaps, initially slow sales of the 24-70 f/4 IS (other than during all the $900-$1050 sales) they figured they'd just start a bit lower. It might use smaller elements than the 24-70 too and it doesn't have the tricky built-in macro.